Excellent read today re: Big IIX Commissioner's comments...

Chuck Neinas now has an extra sphincter, courtesy of Big East Coast Bias.

Tremendous article! ...

Either these folks do not understand the basics of contractual law or they are devoid of integrity. I firmly suspect it is the latter. It would be laughable were it not so utterly sad and pathetic.

Screw wvu and the b12. I understand why they are doing what they are doing and I'm sure they understand why the Big East is doing what it's doing. In court the BE has the stronger hand because wvu is going to breach a contract. They are prepared to deal with whatever the penalty will be so there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. UConn and the BE just need to keep moving forward and do what is in our own best interests.

Good read.

Can I ask you a serious question? Are you an idiot or do you just get off on lying on message boards?

There is something the Big East can do to stop them from leaving over the next two seasons -- they can ask a judge to force WVU to perform its contract. Which the Big East has asked for. Will a judge grant specific performance? We'll see, but it certainly can, and based on these facts it certainly might. No matter how many times you state that WVU can leave and no one can stop it, you are, at the moment, demonstratively wrong. On something that is not opinion but fact.

So the answer to my question is ... ?

Neinas does not believe what he is saying. The Big XII knows they are taking a revenue hit in '12 beause they don't have enough teams, and their strategy is to blame it on the courts when an injunction issues and they lose money. Then they can go to legislatures for funding blaming another state's courts, rather than themselves.

That is the only strategy that makes any sense whatsoever, and as so many lawyers are involved, I don't believe that they are following a strategy that is not at least close to rational.

my biggest take fro mthis whole situation is that for once the BE made a really smart decision in regards to the 27 month rule. i assumed all of the conferences would have a rule requiring a year's notice due to scheduling difficulties but obvioulsy the B12 doesn't. the BE powers that be might have made a conference saving decision in putting that clause in

I have questions for you that I hope do not throw me into the idiot category you like to classify people as lately (although I think you threw me there before) -
While the press release says the conference unanimously approved the 27 months, as we all know, press releases and meeting minutes do not always match. Would some dissenting votes by WVU (or other schools) in the meeting minutes on the 27 months hold any sway with the courts? My guess is the BE bylaws do not require a 100% vote to change exit provisions.

Would the court look at anything like a customary and reasonable factor in this case? For lack of a better example, I know someone who signed a 2 year non-compete as part of maintaining employment but was able to have it reduced in court to 12 months as that is the more customary and reasonable length for the industry. Would they look at other conferences and say monetary considerations are based on TV contracts, but other conferences utilize a much shorter periods, so BE, you get the exit fee and WVU you get x months?

Are there any commercially reasonable arguments for WVU leaving now? Any, no matter what you personally think of them, that hold 1 drop of water? Restraint of trade? Irreparable monetary loss? If there is even 1 that has a 1% chance of success, I can see WVU pushing it and the BE potentially entertaining settlement options so they can buy the 8th team for 2012.

My personal take is that the BE contract/exit provisions are not as ironclad as people want to believe, however, most of this is all posturing for WVU to get out in 2013 versus 2015. The BE will have enough schools by 2013 and will not need WVU.

As a final note, you make a lot of declarative statements as fact such as your first statement above. You have no idea what he believes.

You ask some perfectly reasonable questions. Courts do not always enforce non-compete provisions against individuals as a matter of public policy -- because it is viewed as against public policy to limit an individual's right to earn a living. When business organizations agree to certain terms that limit their rights to do things, the same public policy considerations do not apply. The courts will hold WVU to what it signed. Now, does that mean they will issue an injunction or specific performance? No, it doesn't. They may issue equitable relief (I still view that as likely for at least 2012, but it's not definite) or may only allow monetary damages. But the fact that other conferences do not rquire such a long exit period should not factor in.

The criteria for a court granting an injunction or specific performance are likelihood of success on the merits and irreperable harm. I think, and have stated, that equitable relief will be much harder to get in '13 than '12 because, with new members coming in, the harm to the Big East of letting WVU out early seems far less irreperable.

In terms of whether WVU was really on board with the changes, and maybe could protest because they weren't, WVU's own papers do not raise the argument that they were dragged into the 27 months against their will. So it really is a non-issue.

Finallly, as to my "crankiness," many believe, and maybe there is even a new media concensus I missed, that it's o.k. to anonymously go on a message board and criticize actual people, in the most partisan, personal and at times silly ways, but one should be careful saying bad things about posters. My view of the world is the opposite. People who are out there with their names demand more respect than anonymous posters, and I have no issue stating that I think a post is stupid when it seems to me that it is. And, I try to reserve that for posts that I really don't believe were made in good faith, but are just mistakes. Could I be wrong sometimes? Of course. Does that make it fair for people to challenge my posts? Of course it does, and they do. But my view is that I'd rather posters incentivize each other to make this board a good place to have good discussions about UConn sports than simply allow people to say whatever they want that clutters up good discussion. And, as to my statement on this particular thread, I fully stand by my belief that given the amount of discussion we've had on this on this board, there is not a rational position to take that it is not possible to force WVU to stay in the conference, and I fully believe that the post that I criticized, coming from a poster who is on this board participating all the time, has some other motivation.

Sorry -- I don't understand what you are asking me.

As a fellow attorney, I agree with all of this. I do think it's a long shot that a court issues an injunction beyond next season. I really can't tell whether they will for next season, could go either way. We aren't privy to the detailed arguments being made with respect to irreparable damage. The Big East has a duty to mitigate. I think WVU's position would be stronger if there was a new, incoming BE team that could play in the BE next season.

When the settlement rumor floated the other day (and BL was a little cranky about part of my post then), I suggested that if the rumor were true, it was likely because we had secured a team for next season. If the BE was able to make that happen, then settling, letting WVU go and pocketing the cash would make sense rather than a protracted and expensive continuation of two lawsuits.

WTF are you talking about? What am I lying about? Look, I'm not a lawyer. So forgive my idiocy in matters of law but I think that WVU is going to the Big 12 next year and is prepared to breach their contract with the Big East. That's all I stated. Not sure what your problem is or what you think my ulterior motive could be.

John Adams once said "One useless man is called a disgrace. 2 useless men are a law firm. And 3 or more are called a legislature." Now that was slamming legislatures.
(Note, it is sometimes quoted using congress rather than legislature, but I believe that was a later revision used in a play and not Adams' original words. Though it is equally appropriate.)